• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Did AB1934 pass the Senate last night?

K

KS_to_CA

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2008
Messages
443
Location
National City, CA, ,
Who to sue?

Considering the 2nd A of the US Constitution, Article 3 of the California Constitution, the Heller and MacDonald decisions, can the legislators who author and vote for bills such as AB1934 be sued in court?

Maybe not during their term but after their term, for knowingly passing such laws?

IANAL.
 
bigtoe416

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,747
Location
Oregon
CA_fr_KS said:
Considering the 2nd A of the US Constitution, Article 3 of the California Constitution, the Heller and MacDonald decisions, can the legislators who author and vote for bills such as AB1934 be sued in court?
Click to expand...

You'd want to bring this under 42 USC 1983 I'm assuming? I believe representatives have immunity from such prosecutions.

Quoting from http://www.constitution.org/brief/forsythe_42-1983.htm:

State and local legislators and judges are protected by absolute immunity when sued in their individual capacity for damages or injunctive relief, while prosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity when sued in their individual capacities for damages only.
Click to expand...
 
C.FERGUSON

C.FERGUSON

New member
Joined
Aug 6, 2010
Messages
8
Location
corona, ca
passed once again!

they passes once again! they have one days public notice to file tomorrow to get it off the inactive list. so thursday would be the last day to vote or its dead in the water!!!
 
bigtoe416

bigtoe416

Anti-Saldana Freedom Fighter
Joined
Jun 3, 2008
Messages
1,747
Location
Oregon
C.FERGUSON said:
they passes once again! they have one days public notice to file tomorrow to get it off the inactive list. so thursday would be the last day to vote or its dead in the water!!!
Click to expand...

Can we get a citation for this? I can't find a source anywhere, and I'd love to know that it's true.
 
K

KS_to_CA

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 27, 2008
Messages
443
Location
National City, CA, ,
Judging from the amendments, what say you?

Are the amendments made to make the bill "tougher" or are the amendments kinda "diluting" the bill?

Reason why I am asking is that the amendments might point to the sentiment, and probably the vote of the senate towards this bill.
 
D

Devilinbp

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2010
Messages
145
Location
San Diego, California, United States
From what i have read, a bill can stay on the inactive list indefinitely (or at least till the end of a session) and brought back to the floor for a vote (provided it has already been read three times) with one day's notice. I did not see any provisions for "killing" a bill on the inactive list. One would assume the author would have to withdraw it to "kill" it.
 
Palecon

Palecon

New member
Joined
Jan 4, 2010
Messages
169
Location
Los Angeles, California, USA
It did not get heard yesterday. The Senate has until Tuesday to do something with it. After Tuesday it is dead. If it passes then it will go to the neutered one for signature.

Just keep opposition going until then, then on to pressuring Arnold to kick it to the curb
 
Palecon

Palecon

New member
Joined
Jan 4, 2010
Messages
169
Location
Los Angeles, California, USA
If nothing is done today maybe we can find a Dem or two who maybe on fence regards to 1934 and call them.

As I recall senator wright sd-25 voted in opposition to this in PS committee and had some nice comments regards to gun rights for personal protection.

I have called his office and asked that his staff find out from him if there are any Senators on fence on this that we then can call and ask they vote it down.

Are there any R's that are voting affirmatively on this does anyone know, or maybe on fence.
 
puppy8agun

puppy8agun

Regular Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2010
Messages
110
Location
Concord, CA
AB 1934 OPEN CARRY BILL HEARING! at the Capitol MONDAY 8/30/2010

AB 1934 WILL be going for vote Monday!!!! We need a strong show of opposition present. Come if you are in the area even if you will be late.

Oropeza is being driven up w/escort not able to fly per Dr. orders. We still have work to done. Dean Florez and Senator Ron Calderon need worked on hard during this last round and DeSaulnier needs hit hard with calls and any means we can! If he thinks it will cause controversy he may not present.

Being Presented by Mark DeSaulnier
Capitol Office
Phone: (916) 651-4007
Fax: (916) 445-2527
State Capitol, Room 2054
Sacramento, CA 95814
District Office
Phone: (925) 942-6082
Fax: (925) 942-6087
1350 Treat Blvd., Suite 240
Walnut Creek, CA 94597

Two Senators that need to hear opposition via phone/ fax who are wobblers
*Senator Dean Florez*
Phone: (916) 651-4016
Fax: (916) 327-5989

*Senator Ron Calderon*
Phone: (916) 651-4030
Fax: (916) 327-8755
 
ConditionThree

ConditionThree

State Pioneer
Joined
May 22, 2006
Messages
2,231
Location
Shasta County, California, USA
Faxed the following to Mark DeSaulnier-

Dear Senator;


Last week, Kevin Hall of San Francisco filed a federal lawsuit after being denied permission to carry a firearm out his own front door. He lives within 1000 feet of a K-12 school and in following the law, sought written permission from the school superintendent. He and others like him have been protesting California's onerous firearm laws- by the lawful carry of unloaded firearms in accordance to the ridiculous restrictions imposed by existing law.

AB1934 has been advanced and exists solely to silence this minority in the public square. Those who carry in this manner are petitioning their government for a redress of their grievances... They have had enough interference with their right to provide for their defense, and the unloaded, holstered sidearm is their sit-in, their banner, their political bumper sticker and their their peace sign.

Passage of AB1934 will be viewed in the second amendment community as an assault on the recent affirmations of the Supreme Court ensconced in the decisions in Chicago v McDonald and earlier in D.C.v Heller. Kevin Hall will not be the only plaintiff coming forward to litigate in the event this legislation passes. The open carry movement is filled with activists prepared to follow Kevin's lead- instead of a single litigant, it will be hundreds and the Supreme Court is on their side.

I strongly oppose this bill, and believe California is not prepared to accept the outcome that will certainly result.

ConditionThree
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top